- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 12-8- 2004 against which S. L. P. No. 24116 of 2004 was filed before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on 3-12-2004 dismissed the said S. L. P. as withdrawn by following order : "after arguing for some time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition stating that no written consent was taken by the contesting respondent as required under Section 196 of the Agra Tenancy Act. Though this point was urged but it has not been considered and the petitioner wants to move the High Court in review on this point. Under the circumstances, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn. "
(2.) THEREAFTER this review petition has been filed alongwith delay condonation application. Delay in filing review petition is condoned. Learned Counsel for contesting respondent has argued that review petition is not maintainable as it is not covered by any of the contingencies provided under Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC.
(3.) CALCUTTA High Court in Smt. B. Dass v. C. M. C. , reported in AIR 2005 N. O. C. 223 (CALCUTTA), has held that rigid principles of review contained in the aforesaid provisions of CPC do not apply to review in writ petitions. Question of absence of written permission for planting grove was thoroughly examined by Chief Revenue Officer in the judgment dated 26-7-2004 which was challenged in the writ petition. Ground-D taken in the writ petition also dealt with the said aspect of the matter.;